Re: 3/27 test on B99 Re: Re: [siteplan] Fuel quality

Thanks. I performed the 3/27 tests in clean jars with screw top lids.  
I got the methanol right out of our methanol production barrel.

After drying this questionable fuel, I was planning on taking a small  
sample of the fuel and re-reacting to see if I get any more glycerin  
out. If I don't get any glycerin, then I'm going to have to make a  
decision there about its quality before adding to the coop's fuel  
tote for purchase. Any suggestions for more extensive testing? We're  
still working with U of O in Corvallis for gas chromotography  
testing, but we can't count on getting this testing done very often.  
What about the pHLip test kit? Have you tried that? Is it worth it's  
$50 price tag?

Our plans are to do the 3/27 test after reacting fuel, visuals during  
the wash, shake test after drying and probably for the next few  
batches, re-react small samples of each batch on the table top.

Question: Can you not perform the 3/27 test with isopropyl alcohol?  
Why not?

Another question: Your book doesn't mention anything about pre- 
washes. What's your feeling about them? They arrest the reaction, do  
they not, which may or may not be a good thing. I have "inherited"  
fuel-making procedures from past coop mixmasters, some of which I  
don't know the science behind.


On Dec 11, 2006, at 10:00 PM, girl mark wrote:

> Be aware that if Sequential is selling B99 or someone's added  
> antigels,
> it might not pass either, though for reasons that aren't due to
> unreacted material... I don't know this for a fact but it seems  
> possible.
>
> Are you doing the 3/27 test in a sealed container, with good new
> methanol such as a new bottle of Heet antifreeze from the auto parts
> store? It seems to be sensitive to water and to the evaporation of
> methanol during the test. The best way to get a 'good' sample for
> comparison is to make some test batches with varying amounts of  
> catalyst
> and methanol, that'll give you a good idea of what the range of  
> results
> can look like and mkae it easier to interpret borderline failures.
>
> Mark
>
>
> Zac Imboden wrote:
>
>> We need to run all the tests that we can for every batch and be
>> rigorous about dealing with the results. It was my decision to wash
>> and dry the "failed" fuel, because I wanted to see what happened  
>> to it
>> through that process. We will test it again carefully after drying  
>> and
>> determine whether it needs to be re-reacted, which is probably what
>> will happen.
>>
>>
>> On Dec 10, 2006, at 9:59 PM, Pete Kramer wrote:
>>
>>> I feel fuel quality comes up once and a while, but then gets swept
>>> under the run b/c raw production takes presedence and coop memebers
>>> are willing to buy it regardless.  I honestly don't feel we are
>>> churning out anything bad, but I do feel we need tighter quality
>>> control.  These kinds of things are never a problem until its too
>>> late!!
>>>
>>> Lets get this back at the forefront of our planning/discussions!
>>>
>>> Pete
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>> From: Felix Kersting <[email protected]
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>> To: siteplan <[email protected]
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>; GoBiodiesel Mixmasters
>>> <[email protected]  
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>> Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 8:07:32 PM
>>> Subject: [siteplan] Fuel quality
>>>
>>> Friends,
>>>
>>> Thanks to all for some great work party accomplishments on Saturday.
>>>
>>> I know we are working hard to get the reactors back on line, but  
>>> I would
>>> like to discuss fuel quality.  While we are at this pause in  
>>> production,
>>> we need to re-examine the fuel quality issue.  Zac has been  
>>> testing our
>>> fuel with the 3/27 test and from what I have heard, none has passed.
>>> This test is reported to be a good quick indicator of biodiesel  
>>> purity:
>>> no unreacted glycerindes.
>>>
>>> I would like to suggest that we buy a sample of SeQuential from  
>>> Blue Sky
>>> and test it just for fun.
>>>
>>> I think it would be prudent for someone to be working in the back  
>>> ground
>>> to refine our processing (using 1 liter batches) to get the  
>>> chemistry
>>> right so we pass the test every time.
>>>
>>> These suggestions may be way out of whack if we have tested and  
>>> are sure
>>> we are passing the ASTM quality test.  Perhaps we need to pony up  
>>> the
>>> cash to just go ahead and do that test after we get back on-line  
>>> and are
>>> satisfied we are back to our standard production, then correlate the
>>> results with the ASTM grade stuff.
>>>
>>> Thoughts from anyone?
>>>
>>> Felix
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> siteplan mailing list
>>> [email protected]  
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>
>>> http://lists.gobiodiesel.org/mailman/listinfo/siteplan
>>>
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>> ----
>>> Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
>>> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=45083/*http:// 
>>> advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> siteplan mailing list
>>> [email protected]  
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>
>>> http://lists.gobiodiesel.org/mailman/listinfo/siteplan
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> Zac Imboden
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> 1534 SE 35th Place
>> Portland, OR
>> 97214
>> 971-563-2477
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> ---
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mixmasters mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.gobiodiesel.org/mailman/listinfo/mixmasters
>>
> _______________________________________________
> mixmasters mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.gobiodiesel.org/mailman/listinfo/mixmasters
>
>

--------------------------------------------------------------
Zac Imboden
[email protected]
1534 SE 35th Place
Portland, OR
97214
971-563-2477